Diorama is a German electropop band. The name of the band is a metaphor which represents their notion of music as an artistic form of expression. Diorama is known for their sophisticated lyrics, beautiful metaphors and multilayered meanings
Diorama is a German electropop band. The name of the band is a metaphor which represents their notion of music as an artistic form of expression. Diorama is known for their sophisticated lyrics, beautiful metaphors and multilayered meanings
And One is a German new wave, synthpop and EBM band founded by Steve Naghavi and Chris Ruiz in 1989.
The band formed after Steve Naghavi and Chris Ruiz met in 1989 at a Berlin club. Being fans of early EBM music, Naghavi and Ruiz decided to follow in the footsteps of new wave/synthpop band Depeche Mode by using two keyboards and a beatbox. Jason Ankeny of AllMusic called their 1990 single, “Metal Hammer”, a “significant club hit”. The duo became a trio with the addition of Alex Two, prior to the release of their debut album, Anguish in 1991. That same year, they were honored as the Best New Artist in German
It’s quite the most extraordinary speech I think I’ve ever come across. It was given by Lord James of Blackheath, a respected industrialist and a former senior adviser to the Conservative party.
James was speaking in the Lords debate on the spending review. You might expect him to touch on the issue of government waste, which he is known for politically. Not a bit of it.
James’s speech begins with Brigadoon, moves on to money laundering billions of pounds of terrorist money and ends with the claim that he has been contacted about a mysterious “Foundation X” that wishes to invest £5bn in the United Kingdom, with an extra £17bn for hospitals, schools and Crossrail by Christmas, and who have met with a cabinet minister to discuss their investment. Intriguing, isn’t it?
So here’s the skinny.
As an expert in the laundering of terrorist finance and funny money who has “handled billions of pounds of terrorist money”, James claims he was asked by a leading FSA regulated institution to investigate a mysterious organisation that wanted to invest substantial sums into the UK’s economic reconstruction.
This body, which he calls “Foundation X”, apparently has huge reserves of gold bullion-backed funds. On some estimates, these funds amount to more than the entire gold bullion mined from the earth. With such great wealth, Foundation X is understandably secretive and only wishes to discuss the disbursement of its funds with a head of state or one of the “top six people in the world”. So for 20 weeks, James investigated the foundation. He came to the conclusion that “Foundation X is completely genuine and sincere and that it directly wishes to make the United Kingdom one of the principal points that it will use to disseminate its extraordinarily great wealth into the world”.
Having come to this conclusion, James wished to expedite this investment. So he secured a meeting for representatives of Foundation X with the leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde. This was held some weeks ago and was, at best, inconclusive. Since then, James has discussed Foundation X in detail with Treasury ministers and now believes the government is dragging its heels and missing a major opportunity to drive forward the UK economy.
Now, you might think this is all barmy. After all, mystery foundations with vast quantities of gold bullion-backed securities to invest in the British economy don’t come along every day. It’s tempting to think that James has been the victim of a particularly convincing Nigerian email scam.
But if it is madness, it is madness that has reached the highest levels of government.
After all, not only have members of Foundation X met with the leader of the House of Lords, the Treasury minister, Lord Sassoon, confirmed that he has been in “detailed discussions” on this subject with James, adding that the government “take seriously anyone who wants to invest in our economy”.
So what on earth is going on? One thing is for sure.
The truth is out there.
Few Americans have ever heard of the Guillotine Death by Noahide Laws that PASSED CONGRESS in 1991 and signed into Law and was Approved March 20, 1991 by President of the U. S., George Bush Sr.
AMERICA’S GUILLOTINES AND FEMA’S COFFINS
Fema camps *look it up!
To keep this simple the Laws that are now apart of the American Legal system say that if your have any other faith than the Talmud’s counterfeit Kaballa or break any of the 7 Noahide Laws and one person says that you have done so, you can have your head cut off!
“Because the NOAHIDE LAWS forbid the free exercise of religion (especially Christianity) in America, and respect on religion over another (JUDAISM over all other religions) they clearly violate the First Amendment Establishment Clause.
THEREFORE, as long as the US CONSTITUION remains in force, they CANNOT ACTIVATE THE NOAHIDE LAWS AND ENFORCE THEM IN AMERICA AT THIS TIME!
However, WHEN the CONSTITUTION IS ABOLISHED through the declaration of NATIONAL EMERGENCY, MARTIAL LAW, THEN you will see the NOAHIDE LAWS activated and the enforcers (which are the military, foreign and domestic) and their guillotines brought out in full force.
THEN the NWO forces and their Jewish supporters will activate the NOAHIDE LAWS, will round up Christians ALREADY ON THE SECRET GOVERNMENT LISTS, and demand that they either RENOUNCE THIER FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, and conform to their NOAHIDE LAWS, or BE EXECUTED with the guillotines.
It is as simple as that and already spoken of prophetically in Revelation 20:4.
The NOAHIDE LAWS legislation was written by the Orthodox Jewish organization based in Brooklyn, NY. They presented them to George Bush SR (Mr. NWO himself) to sign into leglslation.
Mr. “ILLUMINATI BLOODLINE” Bush knew exactly what he was doing, knew WHO would be primarily targeted, and what would happen to Christians in America as a result.
ALL NWO adherents, Jew and Gentile alike, hate the Christians in America (and worldwide) with a passion, as former adherents admitted to me personally.
They KNOW the Christians in the America are the GREATEST DETERRENT to their realization of a NEW WORLD ORDER agenda!
These Noahide Laws state that Gentiles/Christians must conform to their 7 NOAHIDE LAWS supposed given by God to Noah for GENTILES after the flood. (This is stated nowhere in the Bible, however.)
The penalty for breaking THREE of these NOAHIDE LAWS is CAPITOL PUNISHMENT by BEHEADING. Two of those Jewish laws attack Fundamental Christian beliefs directly:
Prohibition against “BLASPEHMY AGAINST GOD” and “IDOLATRY.” Judaism teaches that Christian faith in Jesus Christ VIOLATES BOTH.
Jesus Christ was ordered EXECUTED by the Jewish Pharisees for declaring he WAS THE SON OF GOD after His arrest. They called His admission “BLASPHEMY” and sentenced Him to death.
And now the Jews in America seek to use their Noahide Laws to discriminate against and finally execute CHRISTIANS for THEIR “blasphemy” of calling Jesus “The Son of God” and worshipping Him as GOD WITH US, “Emmanuel.” Jewish writers of this legislation even mandate CAPITOL PUNISHMENT BY BEHEADING for those who violate 3 of their 7 Noahide laws!
This is FORCED RELIGIOUS CONVERSION AT THE THREAT OF DEATH! Is this a NEW INQUISITION and new DARK AGES coming to “AMERIKA”???
What if JEWS IN AMERICA were given the mandate to renounce their Judaism and CONVERT TO CHRISTIANITY, or be BEHEADED!!!
Can you imagine the public outcry then???
So WHERE is the American/Christian outrage and outcry in this hour? THIS LEGISLATION HAS ALREADY BEEN PASSED AND THE GUILLOTINES ARE HERE!
OUR OWN MILITARY (and foreign also) are training even NOW to operate them on US under martial law!
WHOSE tax dollars pay for their training? WHOSE tax dollars paid for the guillotines to be imported/manufactured?
Americans should be outraged and in protest across the nation, especially in Washington DC, over the NOAHIDE LAWS and their total violation of everything America has ever stood for regarding religious freedoms!
BUT BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE, they CANNOT activate the NOAHIDE LAWS IN AMERICA YET!
AMERICANS HAVE BUT A SHORT TIME TO PROTEST AND DEMAND THE NOAHIDE LAWS BE RESCINDED AND ABOLISHED NOW!
Otherwise, when MARTIAL LAW IS DECLARED,and the Constitution abolished, THEN you will witness with your own eyes the unveiling and public display of these modern military guillotines, and the US and foreign troops training (in FORT LEWIS, FORT BRAGG, FORT HOOD and elsewhere)to operate them on AMERICAN violaters of these outrageous, discriminatory and strictly Jewish religion-based laws.
THEREFORE, THE JEWS WHO SUPPORT THE NOAHIDE LAWS AND ADVOCATE FORCED CONVERSION OF CHRISTIANS/GENTILES, CANNOT WAIT FOR MARTIAL LAW TO TRANSPIRE.
For then and ONLY then can their NOAHIDE LAWS be fully activated in AMERICA.
The enemies of the American Constitution and Christianity in America, and our religious and all other freedoms, cannot wait for the planned government black ops to take place, nullifying everything promised in the Constitution to us.
So NOW you KNOW WHEN the NOAHIDE LAWS and the horrific modern military GUILLOTINES to enforce them will come into full force in America.”
(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — According to the Independent, government sources say a British team is set to travel to Israel in the near future to learn Israeli counterterrorism enforcement strategies. The proposed move comes amid a spate of terrorist activity in the United Kingdom, as well as concerns about the British authorities’ response time and ability to counter terrorist attacks.
The Jerusalem Post cites police involvement as being integral when it comes to “turning the tide” in Jerusalem’s battle against terrorist activity. More than 3,500 police officers are reportedly involved in multiple units, constantly patrolling and on guard with undercover officers on site at all times.
Considering this, it is curious that the United Kingdom would want to learn police tactics from an occupying force that suppresses its local population. Why would the United Kingdom want to create a similar environment and heavily arm its police force? And to what end?
“Amnesty International, other human rights organizations and even the U.S. Department of State have cited Israeli police for carrying out extrajudicial executions and other unlawful killings, using ill treatment and torture (even against children), suppression of freedom of expression/association including through government surveillance, and excessive use of force against peaceful protesters.”
Why should anyone take the United Kingdom’s commitment to genuinely counter extremism seriously considering its current prime minister gave free passage to the Manchester-based Libyan Islamic Fighting Group to Libya in 2011 to battle Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi? The recent Manchester attacker was affiliated with this group, meaning the U.K. government actively cultivated the conditions for the Manchester terrorist attack to take place.
According to Amnesty International, Israeli police have trained law enforcement officials from Baltimore, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California, Arizona, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Georgia, and Washington state, to name but a few.
Israeli tactics have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians, including a host of children. Even at the time of this article’s publication, Israel’s latest crackdown has killed at least three Palestinians and injured hundreds more.
The following is a revised version of an interview between George Soros and Gregor Peter Schmitz of the German magazine WirtschaftsWoche.
Gregor Peter Schmitz: When Time put German Chancellor Angela Merkel on its cover, it called her the “Chancellor of the Free World.” Do you think that is justified?
George Soros: Yes. As you know, I have been critical of the chancellor in the past and I remain very critical of her austerity policy. But after Russian President Vladimir Putin attacked Ukraine, she became the leader of the European Union and therefore, indirectly, of the Free World. Until then, she was a gifted politician who could read the mood of the public and cater to it. But in resisting Russian aggression, she became a leader who stuck her neck out in opposition to prevailing opinion.
She was perhaps even more farsighted when she recognized that the migration crisis had the potential to destroy the European Union, first by causing a breakdown of the Schengen system of open borders and, eventually, by undermining the common market. She took a bold initiative to change the attitude of the public. Unfortunately, the plan was not properly prepared. The crisis is far from resolved and her leadership position—not only in Europe but also in Germany and even in her own party—is under attack.
Schmitz: Merkel used to be very cautious and deliberate. People could trust her. But in the migration crisis, she acted impulsively and took a big risk. Her leadership style has changed and that makes people nervous.
Soros: That’s true, but I welcome the change. There is plenty to be nervous about. As she correctly predicted, the EU is on the verge of collapse. The Greek crisis taught the European authorities the art of muddling through one crisis after another. This practice is popularly known as kicking the can down the road, although it would be more accurate to describe it as kicking a ball uphill so that it keeps rolling back down. The EU now is confronted with not one but five or six crises at the same time.
Schmitz: To be specific, are you referring to Greece, Russia, Ukraine, the coming British referendum, and the migration crisis?
Soros: Yes. And you haven’t even mentioned the root cause of the migration crisis: the conflict in Syria. Nor have you mentioned the unfortunate effect that the terrorist attacks in Paris and elsewhere have had on European public opinion.
Merkel correctly foresaw the potential of the migration crisis to destroy the European Union. What was a prediction has become the reality. The European Union badly needs fixing. This is a fact but it is not irreversible. And the people who can stop Merkel’s dire prediction from coming true are actually the German people. I think the Germans, under the leadership of Merkel, have achieved a position of hegemony. But they achieved it very cheaply. Normally hegemons have to look out not only for their own interests, but also for the interests of those who are under their protection. Now it’s time for Germans to decide: Do they want to accept the responsibilities and the liabilities involved in being the dominant power in Europe?
Schmitz: Would you say that Merkel’s leadership in the refugee crisis is different from her leadership in the euro crisis? Do you think she’s more willing to become a benevolent hegemon?
Soros: That would be asking too much. I have no reason to change my critical views on her leadership in the euro crisis. Europe could have used the kind of leadership she is showing now much earlier. It is unfortunate that when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt in 2008, she was not willing to allow the rescue of the European banking system to be guaranteed on a Europe-wide basis because she felt that the prevailing German public opinion would be opposed to it. If she had tried to change public opinion instead of following it, the tragedy of the European Union could have been avoided.
Schmitz: But she wouldn’t have remained chancellor of Germany for ten years.
Soros: You are right. She was very good at satisfying the requirements and aspirations of a broad range of the German public. She had the support of both those who wanted to be good Europeans and those who wanted her to protect German national interest. That was no mean feat. She was reelected with an increased majority. But in the case of the migration issue, she did act on principle, and she was willing to risk her leadership position. She deserves the support of those who share her principles.
I take this very personally. I am a strong supporter of the values and principles of an open society because of my personal history, surviving the Holocaust as a Jew under the Nazi occupation of Hungary. And I believe that she shares those values because of her personal history, growing up under Communist rule in East Germany under the influence of her father, who was a pastor. That makes me her supporter although we disagree on a number of important issues.
Schmitz: You have been so involved in promoting the principles of open society and supporting democratic change in Eastern Europe. Why is there so much opposition and resentment toward refugees there?
Soros: Because the principles of an open society don’t have strong roots in that part of the world. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is promoting the principles of Hungarian and Christian identity. Combining national identity with religion is a powerful mix. And Orbán is not alone. The leader of the newly elected ruling party in Poland, Jaros?aw Kaczy?ski, is taking a similar approach. He is not as intelligent as Orbán, but he is a canny politician and he chose migration as the central issue of his campaign. Poland is one of the most ethnically and religiously homogeneous countries in Europe. A Muslim immigrant in Catholic Poland is the embodiment of the Other. Kaczy?ski was successful in painting him as the devil.
Schmitz: More broadly, how do you view the political situation in Poland and Hungary?
Soros: Although Kaczy?ski and Orbán are very different people, the regimes they intend to establish are very similar. As I have suggested, they seek to exploit a mix of ethnic and religious nationalism in order to perpetuate themselves in power. In a sense they are trying to reestablish the kind of sham democracy that prevailed in the period between the First and Second World Wars in Admiral Horthy’s Hungary and Marshal Pi?sudski’s Poland. Once in power, they are liable to capture some of the institutions of democracy that are and should be autonomous, whether the central bank or the constitutional court. Orbán has already done it; Kaczy?ski is only starting now. They will be difficult to remove.
In addition to all its other problems, Germany is going to have a Polish problem. In contrast to Hungary, Poland has been one of the most successful countries in Europe, both economically and politically. Germany needs Poland to protect it from Russia. Putin’s Russia and Kaczy?ski’s Poland are hostile to each other but they are even more hostile to the principles on which the European Union was founded.
Schmitz: What are those principles?
Soros: I have always looked at the EU as the embodiment of the principles of the open society. A quarter of a century ago, when I first became involved in the region, you had a moribund Soviet Union and an emerging European Union. And interestingly, both were adventures in international governance. The Soviet Union tried to unite proletarians of the world, and the EU tried to develop a model of regional integration based on the principles of an open society.
Schmitz: How does that compare with today?
Soros: The Soviet Union has been replaced by a resurgent Russia and the European Union has come to be dominated by the forces of nationalism. The open society that both Merkel and I believe in because of our personal histories, and that the reformers of the new Ukraine want to join because of their personal histories, does not really exist. The European Union was meant to be a voluntary association of equals but the euro crisis turned it into a relationship between debtors and creditors where the debtors have difficulties in meeting their obligations and the creditors set the conditions that the debtors have to meet. That relationship is neither voluntary nor equal. The migration crisis introduced other fissures. Therefore, the very survival of the EU is at risk.
Schmitz: That’s an interesting point, because I remember that you used to be very critical of Merkel two years ago for being too concerned with the interests of her voters and establishing a German hegemony on the cheap. Now, she has really changed course on the migration issue, and opened the door wide to Syrian refugees. That created a pull factor that in turn allowed the European authorities to develop an asylum policy with a generous target, up to a million refugees a year with the target open for several years. Refugees who are qualified to be admitted could be expected to stay where they are until their turn comes.
Soros: But we don’t have a European asylum policy. The European authorities need to accept responsibility for this. It has transformed this past year’s growing influx of refugees from a manageable problem into an acute political crisis. Each member state has selfishly focused on its own interests, often acting against the interests of others. This has precipitated panic among asylum seekers, the general public, and the authorities responsible for law and order. Asylum seekers have been the main victims. But you are right. Merkel deserves credit for making a European asylum policy possible.
The EU needs a comprehensive plan to respond to the crisis, one that reasserts effective governance over the flows of asylum seekers so that they take place in a safe, orderly way, and at a pace that reflects Europe’s capacity to absorb them. To be comprehensive, the plan has to extend beyond the borders of Europe. It is less disruptive and much less expensive for potential asylum seekers to stay in or close to their present location.
My foundation developed a six-point plan on this basis and announced it at exactly the same time as Orbán introduced his six-point plan, but the two plans were diametrically opposed to each other. Orbán’s plan was designed to protect the national borders against the asylum seekers; ours sought to protect the asylum seekers. We have been at odds ever since. Orbán accuses me of trying to destroy Hungary’s national culture by flooding the country with Muslim refugees. Paradoxically, our plan would keep qualified asylum seekers where they are currently located and provide facilities in those places; it is his policies that induce them to rush to Europe while the doors are still open.
Schmitz: Could you make your paradox a little clearer? Why would your plan prevent refugees from flooding Europe?
Soros: We advocate a common European asylum policy that would reassert control over the European rather than national borders and allow asylum seekers to reach Europe in a safe, orderly way, and at a pace that reflects the EU’s capacity to absorb them. Orbán advocates using the national borders to keep out migrants.
Schmitz: And who is winning the conflict?
Soros: In Hungary, he has won hands down. More disturbingly, he is also winning in Europe. He is challenging Merkel for the leadership of Europe. He launched his campaign at the party conference in September 2015 of the Christian Social Union of Bavaria (the sister party of Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union) and he did so in cahoots with Horst Seehofer, the German party chairman. And it is a very real challenge. It attacks the values and principles on which the European Union was founded. Orbán attacks them from the inside; Putin from the outside. Both of them are trying to reverse the subordination of national sovereignty to a supranational, European order.
Putin goes even further: he wants to replace the rule of law with the rule of force. They are harking back to a bygone age. Fortunately, Merkel has taken the challenge seriously. She is fighting back and I support her not only with words but also with deeds. My foundations do not engage only in advocacy; they seek to make a positive contribution on the ground. We established a foundation in Greece, Solidarity Now, in 2013. We could clearly foresee that Greece in its impoverished state would have difficulty taking care of the large number of refugees that are stuck there.
Schmitz: Where would the money for your plan come from?
Soros: It would be impossible for the EU to finance this expenditure out of its current budget. It could, however, raise these funds by issuing long-term bonds using its largely untapped AAA borrowing capacity. The burden of servicing the bonds could be equitably distributed between member states that accept refugees and those that refuse to do so or impose special restrictions. Needless to say, that is where I remain at odds with Chancellor Merkel.
Schmitz: You have retired from running your hedge fund and devote all your energies to your foundation. What are your major projects?
Soros: There are too many to enumerate. We seem to be involved in most of the burning political and social issues of the world. But I would single out the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) and the Central European University (CEU) because there is a revolution going on in the social sciences and I am deeply involved both personally and through my foundations. With the help of the natural sciences, mankind has gained control over the forces of nature but our ability to govern ourselves has not kept pace with the achievements of natural science. We have the capacity to destroy our civilization and we are well on the way to doing so.
Schmitz: You paint a bleak picture of our future.
Soros: But it is a biased view and deliberately so. Recognizing a problem is an invitation to do something about it. That is the main lesson I learned from the formative experience of my life, in 1944, when the Nazis occupied Hungary. I might not have survived if my father hadn’t secured false identification papers for his family (and many others). He taught me that it’s much better to face harsh reality than to close your eyes to it. Once you are aware of the dangers, your chances of survival are much better if you take some risks than if you meekly follow the crowd. That is why I trained myself to look at the dark side. It has served me well in the financial markets and it is guiding me now in my political philanthropy. As long as I can find a winning strategy, however tenuous, I don’t give up. In danger lies opportunity. It’s always darkest before dawn.
Schmitz: What’s your winning strategy for Greece?
Soros: Well, I don’t have one. Greece was mishandled from the beginning. When the Greek crisis originally surfaced toward the end of 2009, the EU, led by Germany, came to the rescue, but it charged punitive interest rates for the loans it offered. That is what made the Greek national debt unsustainable. And it repeated the same mistake in the recent negotiations. The EU wanted to punish Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and especially his former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis at the same time as it had no choice but to avoid a Greek default. Consequently, the EU imposed conditions that will push Greece into deeper depression.
Schmitz: Is Greece an interesting country for private investors?
Soros: Not as long as it is part of the eurozone. With the euro, the country is unlikely ever to flourish because the exchange rate is too high for it to be competitive.
Schmitz: How concerned are you that in the middle of all these crises an important EU member state such as the UK is considering leaving the European Union?
Soros: Very. I am convinced that Britain should stay in Europe not only for economic but even more for political reasons. An EU without the UK would be a much weaker union.
Schmitz: But surveys show a British majority for a Brexit, or British exit from the EU.
Soros: The campaign for the Brexit has deliberately misled the public. Currently, Britain has the best of all possible deals with Europe. It has access to the common market where nearly half of UK exports go while it is not weighed down by the burden of having joined the eurozone.
Schmitz: Why is the British business community not more vocal about the disadvantages of a Brexit?
Soros: The managements of the multinational corporations that have built up their manufacturing capacity in Britain as a springboard into the common market are reluctant to say that they oppose a Brexit publicly because they don’t want to get embroiled in a political debate where their customers have divergent views. But ask them privately, as I did, and they will readily confirm it.
The Brexit campaign has tried to convince the British public that it is safer to stay out of the common market than to be part of it. The campaign had the field to itself because the government wanted to give the impression that it is holding out for the best deal.
Schmitz: For a long time, Europe—and the world—could count on China as a growth and credit engine.
Soros: China is still historically the most important country. It still has very large accumulated foreign currency reserves.
Schmitz: And that will shelter the country?
Soros: China is exhausting these reserves very rapidly. It also has an incredibly large reservoir of trust from the Chinese population: many people may not understand how the Chinese regime actually works, but they believe that a regime that has managed to overcome so many problems knows what it is doing. But the reservoir of trust is also being exhausted at a remarkably fast rate because the leadership has made many mistakes.President Xi Jinping can carry on with his current policies for another three years or so, but during that time, China will exert a negative influence on the rest of the world by reinforcing the deflationary tendencies that are already prevalent. China is responsible for a larger share of the world economy than ever before and the problems it faces have never been more intractable.
Schmitz: Can President Xi rise to the challenge?
Soros: There is a fundamental flaw in Xi’s approach. He has taken direct control of the economy and of security. If he were to succeed in a market-oriented solution it would be much better for the world and for China. But you cannot have a market solution without some political changes. You cannot fight corruption without independent media. And that’s one thing that Xi is not willing to allow. On that point he is closer to Putin’s Russia than to our ideal of an open society.
Schmitz: What is your assessment of the situation in Ukraine?
Soros: Ukraine has done something almost unbelievable in surviving for two years while facing so many enemies. But it needs a lot more support from outside because it’s exhausted. By putting Ukraine on a short financial leash, Europe is repeating the mistake it has made in Greece. The old Ukraine had much in common with the old Greece—it was dominated by oligarchs and the civil service was used by people who were exploiting their position rather than serving the people. But there’s a new Ukraine that wants to be the opposite of the old Ukraine. The Rada has recently passed a budget for 2016 that meets the conditions imposed by the IMF. Now is the time to hold out the prospect of the additional financial assistance that the new Ukraine needs to carry out radical reforms. That would enable the country not only to survive but to flourish and become an attractive investment destination. Turning the new Ukraine back into the old Ukraine would be a fatal mistake because the new Ukraine is one of the most valuable assets that Europe has, both for resisting Russian aggression and for recapturing the spirit of solidarity that characterized the European Union in its early days.
Schmitz: Many criticize US President Barack Obama for being too weak toward Russia.
Soros: Rightly so. Putin is a supreme tactician who entered the Syrian conflict because he saw an opportunity to improve Russia’s standing in the world. He was ready to keep pushing until he encountered serious resistance. President Obama should have challenged him earlier. If Obama had declared a no-fly zone over Syria when Russia started to supply military equipment on a large scale, Russia would have been obliged to respect it. But Obama was eager to avoid any chance of a direct military confrontation with Russia. So Russia installed antiaircraft missiles and the US had to share control of the skies over Syria with Russia. You could almost say that by shooting down a Russian fighter jet, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdo?an did Obama a favor. Putin had to recognize that his military adventure had run into serious opposition and he now seems ready for a political solution. That is promising.
There is also ISIS and the terrorist attacks that threaten to undermine the values and principles of our civilization. The terrorists want to convince Muslim youth that there is no alternative to terrorism, and if we listen to the likes of Donald Trump they will succeed.
Schmitz: I can’t help but ask. Do you know Trump?
Soros: Going back many years Donald Trump wanted me to be the lead tenant in one of his early buildings. He said: “I want you to come into the building. You name your price.” My answer was, “I’m afraid I can’t afford it.” And I turned him down.
May 24, 2017, 12:04 am
One of the few fascinating things you learn by looking closely at George Soros’s output is how often he is wrong.
The financial Dark Lord, who made a billion dollars overnight when he bet against the British pound in 1992, constantly predicts the sky is falling. Most of the time, it isn’t.
He was mocked for exaggerating risks to the economic order in his 1998 book, The Crisis of Global Capitalism. Last year, he declared, “The EU is on the verge of collapse,” in a New York Review of Booksinterview. His end-of-year assessment for 2016 was: “Democracy is now in crisis.” At the global elite retreat in Davos, Switzerland, this year, he predicted Donald Trump’s inauguration would be bad news for the stock market.
No, no, nope, and wrong again.
Regarding Greece, Soros routinely anticipated disaster in the first years of its financial crisis.
In a 2011 speech in Vienna, he declared, “We are on the verge of an economic collapse which starts, lets’s say, in Greece,” making break-up of the Eurozone “probably inevitable” — a cataclysm that could produce zillions in easy money for high-flying speculators like George Soros, as one of his Greek acolytes pointed out.
But something changed.
Soros saw potential for a different kind of upheaval centered in Greece that intrigued him more than merely adding to his personal money mountain: blowing up borders.
In 2012, George Soros began focusing on migration in Greece, calling it a crisis before it was one, setting the stage for a cataclysm that engulfed the continent three years later.
The tsunami of economic migrants and displaced people (most of the Syrians on the move had been living in Turkey for months or years and left because Turkey would not let them work, not because their survival was immediately threatened) catapulted toward Germany, framed entirely as a refugee crisis, wasn’t inevitable until Soros and his activist army of non-government organizations (NGOs) got involved.
Soros picked a target (barriers to movement between Turkey and Greece), paralyzed the ability of existing institutions to deal with it, and mobilized a new political party, Syriza, to facilitate his agenda.
In Greece, George Soros’s propensity to promote chaos, then capitalize on it, has had wide geopolitical implications.
Blame Germany, Not PASOK
In all his early critiques of the Greek debt crisis, Soros reserves special ire for Germany.
With characteristic bombast, in 2010 he asserts, “Germany is endangering the European Union,” by insisting on Greek fiscal austerity, budget cuts, and tax hikes in exchange for financial aid from the European Union (EU).
To anyone who would listen, he unfolded a critique portraying Greece as a victim, a country unfairly controlled by the EU’s fatally flawed Maastricht Treaty that, in Soros’s analysis, gives undue authority to Europe’s strongest economies.
Nowhere does Soros criticize the country’s own political or economic policies or the socialist party that dominated Greece since 1981.
It was under Prime Minister George Papandreou, a Soros pal, that the Greek fiscal disorder was unveiled.
Papandreou is scion of a legendary political family that produced three generations of PMs. His father, Andreas, founded the Pan-Hellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) in 1974 and served as the party’s charismatic prime minister between 1981-89 and 1993-96.
Andreas Papandreou is awarded significant responsibility for creating a bloated, inefficient public sector — free education and health care, massive public sector employment — built on cheap European credit by dispassionate observers.
Between 1981 and 2011, PASOK controlled the Greek state for 22 of 30 years, including 2001, the year Greece adopted the Euro based on dubious financial data.
When the proverbial dung hit the fan, in 2010, Greece’s deficit was estimated as 15 percent of Gross Domestic Product (EU countries are required to keep it under 3 percent) and the country’s debt was more than 120 percent of GDP, more than twice the EU limit. Local media reported on Soros’s personal visit to George Papandreou at his office in parliament in 2011, purportedly to discuss the country’s dire straits and assure him of President Obama’s commitment to help.
But George Soros never suggests George Papandreou (or his father) played any negative role, especially when they sit together pontificating, as they did at Columbia University, because Papandreou and PASOK have served Soros’ interests in the past.
As foreign minister in 1999-2004, George Papandreou helped his friend George Soros and his larger goals. For example, while Greece held the European Union presidency in 2003, Papandreou helped promote Balkan integration into the EU, as Open Society Foundations (OSF), Soros’s hydra-headed NGO network, favored.
Soros even stationed a Sorosista, Alex Rondo, at Papandreou’s side during his foreign ministry tenure. Rondo oversaw a 251 percent increase in payouts to NGOs, millions of which have been legally challenged by the Greek government since as bogus.
As an international meddler who functions through transnational elite networks, Soros is careful to protect his brethren.
But by 2011, that card had been played. Papandreou was forced from power. A caretaker government was installed to implement austerity measures.
By George Soros’s analysis, it was all Germany’s fault, and he had a new weapon against Old Europe: transnational migration.
In October 2012, the billionaire wrote an op-ed for the Guardian, “Helping Greek Migrants Would Show European Solidarity.” To revive the EU’s original vision, Soros announced he would establish “solidarity houses” in Greece modeled on safe houses set up for Jews by Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg in wartime Hungary.
Among Soros’s goals was to assist refugees held in inhumane detention facilities. The program would also help the Greek poor, he wrote, otherwise the aid risked provoking xenophobic, neo-fascists.
In 2013, Soros created Solidarity Now, a program to provide shelter and other assistance to displaced people, as promised. He put a close friend in charge, another money guy, Stelios (or Stylianos) Zavvos, CEO of Zeus Capital Managers. Through Zavvos, Soros associated with a wide range of Greek elite in politics, finance, and shipping, as captured in a National Herald account of Soros’s role as godfather to Zavvos’s daughter.
A critical move in the science of agitation is identifying an impropriety that makes your opponent vulnerable then clubbing the opponent with it. Think of the Soros-financed #BlackLivesMatter movement.
Saul Alinsky codified the technique in his 1971 classic Rules for Radicals, which OSF published in Macedonia on USAID’s dime!
In Greece, OSF used longtime ally Amnesty International to paint the target.
To block the most popular overland route for undocumented people seeking entry to the EU from Turkey, Frontex, the EU agency on border security, helped the Greek government put up a 6.5-mile steel fence at the Evros River. Frontex also armed Greek border police with search dogs, night-vision goggles, and helicopters.
Illegal crossings into Greece plummeted on this key border: from 6,000 arrests in July 2012 to 45 six months later.
As a result of the blocked land border, the main smuggling route between Turkey and Greece shifted to the sea. As the number of undocumented migrants transiting from Turkey to Greece on the Aegean jumped between 2012 and 2013, the Hellenic Coast Guard increasingly used “pushback” tactics, repulsing boats away from the Greek coast into Turkish waters.
The practice violates international law, a fact that Amnesty International (AI) highlighted in its report Frontier Europe: Human Rights Abuses on Greece’s border with Turkey, published by its London-based International Secretariat, where research is centered, in July 2013.
That office received $500,000 for 2013 from Soros, though it got nothing the year before.
Meanwhile, Open Society Foundation scaled up the AI campaign, sponsoring a public debate and report release in March 2014 at the European Parliament in Brussels on EU Migration Policy: A Push Back for Migrants’ Rights in Greece? that brought together a raft of NGOs, many financed by OSF, to heap criticism on Greece.
It’s not sufficient to provoke anger against a national policy; you need to influence (ideally, control) the national leaders with power to change it.
George Soros began cultivating Alexis Tsipras, 42, leader of the Coalition of the Radical Left, a political party known as Syriza for their shared social agenda as much as their conviction that austerity was bad for Greece.
Syriza started in 2004 as a big tent of extreme left-wing entities — with caricature-like names such as “Renewing Communist Ecological Left” (AKOA) — but burst on the national scene in 2012 as the only political party consistently standing against the painful austerity measures imposed on Athens by “the troika”: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Commission, and the European Central Bank.
Tsipras’s youth benefited the party. His political provenance as a teen communist was ignored.
Soros sponsored a trip to the United States for Tsipras in February 2013 through a think tank he foundedin 2009, the New York-based Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET).
In meetings with the State Department and Treasury, the IMF, the Brookings Institution, and not to mention the New York Times editorial board, Tsipras reinforced his message that despite his extremist pedigree, the West could do business with him.
But he also put on his angry face at Columbia Law School declaring, “We have become the guinea pig for barbaric, violent neoliberal policies,” and insulted Germany, while warning about rising neo-fascism.
Back in Greece, Syriza won big, first in European parliament elections in May 2014 then in parliamentary elections called in January 2015.
Because Syriza was three votes shy of a parliamentary majority, Tsipras allied with a small center-right party, Independent Greeks (ANEL), to govern.
The first sign that Tsipras, an atheist, rejects cultural tradition and norms (probably more than so-called neo-liberal economics) came at his swearing in as prime minister: He refused to take his oath of office from the Greek Orthodox Archbishop.
Before the election, immigration policy was not a major issue; one Syriza leader explained the party would maintain a “common European immigration policy with obligations and rights” while seeking more money from the EU for border security.
A front-page headline in London declaring “Syriza’s historic win puts Greece on collision course with Europe,” referring to economic policy, applied much sooner to the new regime’s plans for immigration.
George Soros and OSF promoted liberal migration policies early on, in the 1990s, but nothing did as much to make open borders a reality as Alexis Tsipras and Syriza in 2015.
In its first month, Syriza’s deputy immigration minister announced the government would turn refugee detention facilities into welcome centers and would discontinue Operation Xenios Zeus, an aggressive policy of identifying and deporting illegal migrants.
On April 14, the government declared all Syrian refugees would receive documents for onward travel to Europe.
The Aegean migration trend that had been building for months exploded almost immediately. According to UN Refugee Commission data, between April and May, refugee/migrant sea arrivals to Greece increased 40 percent. Astonishingly, between April and August, arrivals increased 721 percent (from 13,133 to 107,843). More refugees arrived in July than in all of 2014.
The central government had no plan for handling the refugee surge — at least not one they shared with its mayors. Asked at a meeting in April what would happen to refugees once registered, one authority said they would “simply disappear” to “Europe,” though she did not know how. When the mayors laughed incredulously, she added, “I control entry not exit.”
Not only did the Syriza-led government come from the gate with a dramatic migration policy fully in sync with George Soros’s vision, but its leadership explicitly described the policy as payback… against Germany.
The foreign minister first suggested a link between Greek immigration policy and negotiations with the EU on the sidelines of an informal EU meeting in Riga in March 2015, declaring, “There will be millions of immigrants and thousands of jihadists who will come to Europe,” if no deal is reached.
Willingness to use immigration policy as a weapon against Germany was again declared in March, when the defense minister menaced, “If they [EU] deal a blow to Greece, then they should know the migrants will get papers to go to Berlin. If Europe leaves us in the crisis, we will flood it with migrants, and it will be even worse for Berlin if in that wave of millions of economic migrants there will be some jihadists of the Islamic State too.”
Soon after the government’s announcement that Syrian refugees would be treated with love (and travel docs), Syriza’s Interior Minister Nickos Voutsis said refugees should be given three-month EU residency permits so they could get to their favored destination — typically Germany — a proposal that directly contradicted EU law on asylum, which says asylum seekers have to stay in the country they enter. (Voutsis currently serves as speaker of the Hellenic Parliament.)
In the chaos that accompanied the migration tsunami, very few policymakers or journalists pointed to the main factor that flipped the switch: the Syriza government, prompted by Soros-driven policy prescriptions.
And as often happens, the consequences of the Sorosista proposal made a bad situation worse: In April 2014, 42 illegal immigrants died on the sea route from Turkey to Greece.
One year later, in April 2015, as policies promoted by George Soros and OSF were quickly implemented, 1,308 people died in the sea — an increase of more than 3,000 percent.
Tsipras the Globalist Puppet
The DCLeaks hack of OSF documents last summer confirmed Soros’s engagement on and enthusiasm for illegal migration, especially the version playing out in Greece.
It was revealed that Open Society-Brussels created the Xen Fund — for Xenophobia — to identify and support proponents of “diversity migration” among NGOs, academics, journalists, and even elected officials beginning in 2012.
Last May, in a nine-page memo, OSF’s International Migration Initiative described the Mediterranean crisis as the “new normal,” congratulating OSF for having actors in place to take advantage of “new opportunities”: “Events in the Mediterranean… present new opportunities for reforming migration governance at the global level…. Our longstanding interest and investment… means we have many of the right partners and are positioned to help others navigate this space.”
WikiLeaks revealed on July 10, 2015, Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff, John Podesta, contacted the former president on behalf of the White House, asking Clinton if he would try to persuade PM Tsipras to make a deal with the EU for a debt relief package — despite Greek voters having voted “no” in a referendum on such a deal held just five days earlier. Similar calls to other elite also went out from the White House.
Within days of the U.S. charm offensive, Tsipras caved.
In fact, almost from the minute he was elected, Tsipras turned his back on his electorate to negotiate with the troika.
Syriza’s first finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, recently revealed Tsipras threatened him to concede to international bankers in July 2015, so he resigned instead.
Last week, Tsipras convinced the Greek parliament to endorse pension cuts and tax increases — inspiring street riots — to unlock a $7.5-billion financial package from EU lenders, an amount that almost matches payments due to international creditors of $7 billion when “bonds mature” in July.
Seven years into this “crisis,” Greece is groveling for a loan to repay creditors.
Greek journalist Petros Arguriou notes Tsipras has done a 180 degree turn away from the positions he advocated in 2015 — the defiant anti-austerity platform that won his election.
“He is trying to make alliances with practically everyone — the Greek Orthodox Church, which was supposed to be the enemy of every committed Marxist, with each and every compromised businessman, with drug dealers… he’s not even being selective,” Arguriou said.
“He’s everyone’s friend except the people, like every left-wing politician,” the analyst concluded.
Meanwhile, illegal migration between Turkey and Greece increased again this spring; what prevents a surge like the summer of 2015 is a fragile agreement between the EU and Turkey that has held for more than a year, but it’s a floodgate that could break.
Where is George Soros in all this now?
Always a step ahead, he’s working on flipping Macedonia (with help from Obama holdovers). Against a conservative government maintaining tight border controls, Soros and OSF are close to empowering a destabilizing Muslim-socialist alliance advocating ethnic separatism, a list of leftist social solutions, and… an open border with Greece.
Six senators requested the State Department investigate the puzzling grip George Soros continues to have on U.S. foreign policy in Macedonia and elsewhere.
As the Heritage Foundation’s Mike Gonzalez explains, these senators can’t get a straight answer, because Obama-appointees continue to run the levers and pulleys of the U.S. foreign policy machine: “Career bureaucrats are running the government.”
UPDATE: Philip Marshall’s Coroner Speaks
It’s possible that the biggest conspiracy theory here – is the one that the police have come up with.
Greg Fernandez Jr
21st Century Wire
“As a former operative in this group’s notorious covert missions, including Iran-Contra and the sting of Pablo Escobar, I recognized that this smoke rising over Manhattan might add a major piece to my large jigsaw puzzle of evidence.”
– Philip Marshall (The Big Bamboozle, page 9)
Philip Marshall’s first wife, Ann Kallauner, told the Union Democrat she did not believe Marshall was a “Contra pilot.” She believes her former husband provided a taxi service for Barry Seal; a man who worked in black-ops smuggling drugs and guns in and out of the country for the CIA and DEA. So how much did Kallauner really know about her ex-husband? In the same interview she admits that Marshall was not always honest about his travels with Barry Seal. “He’d be in one city, tell me he was in another,” she told the Union Democrat.
Philip and Ann Marshall were married for about three years starting in 1985. Kallauner, who lives in Louisiana, was also surprised at the allegation, “I don’t see him doing that without being in an altered state.”
Philip Marshall began flying at age 15. The young pilot’s first flight instructor was his father. On 9/11, after the second plane struck the World Trade Center, Marshall’s father called him from New Orleans, the city where Philip was raised. From his Santa Barbara home in Northern California Marshall picked up the phone, “Phil, thank God you’re home.” Marshall’s father added, “There’s more planes missing.” In Richard Clarke’s gate-keeping book, Against All Enemies, Clarke wrote that on 9/11 there were more than a dozen planes missing that day.
As Marshall watched the events of September Eleventh unfold, he began to make connections between the terrorist attack and the fictional book he was about to publish called “Lakefront Airport.” In The Big Bamboozle Marshall writes, “I remembered, through a rush of shock and awe, my work over the previous ten years, the hundreds of hours at this desk, on layovers, studying the new inexorable power that had invaded America, the bull in the china shop that had already caused havoc in my career and the undercurrent of deep mistrust amongst our pilot association. The culmination of that research was nearly finished, and because there were so many holes in my understanding at that time [Lakefront Airport] was written as a novel based on my time flying for the spooks back in the 1980s.”
Even before 9/11 Marshall had “a sick feeling that America was in deep trouble, that a group, this new Bush Administration, just like the old Bush Administration, was an incredibly dangerous, brazen bunch of well-connected, well-educated ideologists. They were on a power trip similar to others in world history, but as far as I knew this was the first attempt by what our founders had labeled domestic enemies to overthrow the Constitution and place America under their own absolute power.”
Many news reports have been quick to echo what the Calaveras County Sheriffs Department has claimed; Philip Marshall killed his two teenage kids, his dog, and himself. What we know is that there is no motive for the allegation, and we know that this conclusion was made the same day that the three bodies were found. The family dog was found in a bedroom, the two kids were found “sleeping” on a couch in the front room, six feet away from each other, and Marshall was found face-up near the front door, in a pool of blood with his gun next to him.
The biggest conspiracy theory here is the one that the police have come up with. Have they tested Philip Marshall for gun residue (ballistics testing)? The police department have not released any information about this question and I haven’t seen it asked in the local news reports about Philip Marshall.
The Calaveras County coroner, Kevin Raggio, claims the two teenagers, Alex (17) and Macaila (14), appeared to be “sleeping.” Joel Metzger, of Calaveras Enterprise.com, points out “It’s highly unlikely Marshall could have shot one without waking the other.” Metzgerreports that Sgt. Chris Hewitt was asked about this. Hewitt responded by saying he could not comment on it, “It’s part of an active investigation.” I thought they had concluded their investigation when they determined Marshall was guilty of a double-murder suicide? Perhaps the investigation is still “on-going” because the police have no motive, no suicide note, and no indication that Marshall fit the profile of someone who murdered the two people closest to him, his own flesh and blood.
Some would say that Marshall did this because of the separation and future divorce to his second wife, Sean Marshall. That is a theory to which there is no evidence. Critics point to a December 2008 dispute Marshall had with Sean and her sister, Erin, over the custody battle of the kids. Marshall was accused by Sean and Erin of slapping Erin at the Forest Meadows home. Marshall was detained, not arrested, and eventually released.
A month earlier in November, Philip Marshall hid in the shower of his house with a video camera as Sean entered the home and allegedly stole a bottle of six 20-milligram pills of Kadian; a very strong opioid.
The police were called out and eventually arrested Sean Marshall, charging her with petty theft, trespassing and possession of drugs without prescription. The charges were dropped on September 28th, 2009. When asked by police why she took the pills, she told them she hid the pills in a tree and planned on giving them to her lawyer.
A divorce hearing was scheduled for this week, February 25th, 2013. Sean Marshall filed for divorce in October 2012. Though the police have no motive, and it’s possible they never will, there are theories that one of the reasons why Philip would kill his kids is over the divorce. Again, this makes little sense considering the age of the children. If Philip Marshall was as close with his kids as friends and neighbors claim, then he didn’t have to worry about losing his teenage children in the custody battle. Alex was 17, almost an adult, who could make his own decision as to where he wanted to live and why. Though Macaila was 14, I believe the judge would have asked her where she wanted to reside, with the mother or father.
Since the two teens went to a high school near the Marshall residence and were active in both social and sporting activities, there’s little doubt the teens would want to finish high school at Bret Harte Union High. Philip Marshall was heavily involved in their school activities as well. So for me, the “If I can’t have the kids, nobody can” theory is very weak.
Bob Freels, security guard for the gated-community of Forest Meadows told the Union Democrat, “I would never have guessed anything like this.” He describes them as a normal family.
Bret Harte Union High School’s Assistant Principle Kelly Osborn is quoted as saying, “It just doesn’t make sense.” A neighbor named Mike Brown described Mr. Marshall as a dedicated father and Merita Calloway of the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors said Marshall was very involved with his kids.
Joel Metzger, of Calaveras Enterprises.com, reports that Calloway also said, “the actions don’t match the person we know” and “he loved his children.” Nextdoor neighbor Carolyn Greenwood said, “I knew him long enough to know he was a regular guy. He was a good father, always there for his kids and a helpful neighbor.” More to the point of foul-play, Merita Calloway, who also lives in the gated-community, told a sheriff’s captain that she “truly felt like somebody came in the house.” While visiting Murphys soon after the incident, Wayne Madsen learned that a side-door was open when the bodies were found.
As seen above, the same day the bodies were found the police released a statement claiming “the reason for this murder-suicide is unknown at this time.”
So where is the motive provided by the Calaveras County Sheriff’s office? They have none. The people who lived near Philip Marshall and communicated with him have a hard time believing Marshall would kill his two children. There is no suicide note and no motive. Also, no one heard any gun shots between Thursday, January 31st and Saturday February 2nd, 2013.
On February 3rd Sgt. Chris Hewitt made it clear the police investigating the crime do not believe there was foul-play. “All evidence and information at the scene confirmed this was indeed a double-murder suicide and there was no evidence to suggest there was an outside party who entered the house and committed a triple murder.” I hope part of their evidence is gun residue found on Philip Marshall. Of course, the police can’t even determine the time of death. They can only theorize on that too. It happened some time between Thursday and Saturday. The autopsy results by Calaveras County coroner Kevin Raggio confirmed what we already knew – that all four died from a single gun shot wound to the head. The toxicology report, which may not be released for a few more weeks, will hopefully shed some light on what really happened to Marshall and his family. Until then, I don’t see how anyone can conclude this was a double-murder suicide.
I believe Marshall, his two kids, and the family dog (a small shitzu) were murdered one or two days before the Superbowl; which happened to take place in Marshall’s hometown of New Orleans. There is just as much evidence, if not more, to suggest foul-play as there is to suggest a double-murder suicide. Yes, Marshall had a Glock 9mm registered in his name, but where is the ballistic evidence to prove Marshall fired the weapon? Even then, how could the police rule out foul-play the same day the bodies were found. More so, if the investigation was on-going on Superbowl Sunday, why was a clean-up crew removing evidence from a crime scene?
On February 19th, Wayne Madsen told Alex Jones of Infowars.com, “Police said even before they had finished investigating the case, they permitted professional cleaners to come into the Marshall home to clean the premises. After that, there were two sets of vehicles seen at the Marshall home still conducting the investigation after the home was professionally cleaned.”
Madsen, of The Wayne Madsen Report, was in the town of Murphys right around the same time I was. On February 13th, Sean Marshall and her sister were at Bret Harte Union High School near Murphys for some type of ceremony for the two slain teens. The sister, Erin, gave some type of eulogy and Sean gave the closing statement. It’s not clear if either two women think Philip Marshall is guilty or innocent of this crime. Sean was quoted as saying, by Joel Metzger, “Being in Turkey and getting the news, it was almost unbearable. When I heard of this devastation, there are no words ever to explain the emotions, the hurt, the regrets. I couldn’t hear God at that moment. I couldn’t hear his answers why, why would you do this? Why them? Why me? Hug everyone, love everyone, be kind.”
Why blame God? Why not blame the ones who murdered Philip Marshall and his two kids? Shall we just trust in what the police say? Should we believe, without evidence, that Philip Marshall murdered his two children, his dog, and then shot himself on the left side of the head?
Wayne Madsen was in Murphys the same day as the ceremony. That night, on February 13th, Madsen told Infowars Nightly News host Jakari Jackson, “that evening, someone tried to break in through a sliding door at the back of the residence. It’s quite clear that Marshall has something that somebody wanted so bad, they were willing to kill him and his children and his family dog for.”
Who is Barry Seal?
Conspiracy theories continue due to the unanswered questions, not because of Marshall’s past. Examining Marshall’s past brings us to Barry Seal. Barry Seal’s wife once said that her husband flew the getaway plane out of Dallas after John F. Kennedy was killed. It’s believed that Seal began flying for black-op missions in the 50′s and hired Marshall in the 80′s after Seal lost his pilot’s license. Marshall told Coast to Coast that many of the contract pilots did not know what their planes were carrying. Both Seal and Marshall were involved in smuggling arms and drugs into South America. Barry Seal had ties to David Ferrie, who was also a pilot at one time. 1967, David Ferrie was questioned by District Attorney Jim Garrison about his involvement in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Ferrie lied to Garrison about his whereabouts of November 22, 1963. Soon after Ferrie met with Garrison, Ferrie allegedly committed suicide. On February 19, 1986, Barry Seal was shot multiple times while attempting to exit his car. Seal was going to testify that George H. W. Bush was involved in the smuggling operations. Barry Seal may have been involved in what is know as Operation 40; the alleged hit team that was ordered to kill JFK on November 22, 1963.
Philip Marshall’s fictional Lakefront Airport is about Barry Seal and his CIA-connected smuggling operations involving contract pilots.
According to page 152 of Philip Marshall’s last published book, The Big Bamboozle, “Barry had some wild encounters with with the world’s most dangerous people that included cocaine kingpins and Intelligence Community assassins.” In Marshall’s only “fictional” book, Lakefront Airport, he told the tales of Barry Seal’s “dealings and eventual sting on the notorious Pablo Escobar” as well as Mr. Seal’s “early days of smuggling marijuana and explosives and his dealings with Ollie North and George H. W. Bush’s secret operations south of the border.”
On page 153, Philip Marshall refers to Barry Seal as his former boss. “The third man from the left is my former boss Barry Seal.” This infamous picture (image, left) was taken in Mexico city on January 22, 1963, at the La Reforma nightclub. Of the picture Marshall writes, “Here may very well be the founding members of the Intelligence Community’s Special Activities Division. This photo was taken ten months before President John F. Kennedy was gunned down in Dallas. Some independent investigators believe that this was the assassination team, nicknamed Operation 40, that pulled it off.”
My Trip To Murphys
My friend Patrick Henningsen of 21st Century Wire.com said Murphys is “probably the most picturesque town in North California.” Well said…
Wayne Madsen confirmed everything I learned on my trip to Murphys, and so much more. If not for Wayne’s excellent work, I might have reserved some judgment for a later date. It’s clear to me that many people in the town of Murphys do not believe the official story about Philip Marshall. I hope this revelation will help them consider that 9/11 was an inside job, as Marshall believed. He made direct ties between the hijackers, the flight training they received inside the United States, and the Saudi Arabian Government. It’s believed the Saudis and others financed the terrorist operation that killed over 3,000 people, spawned two unconstitutional wars, created the Patriot Act and made room for N.D.A.A. legislation where the president could detain anyone suspected of working with terrorists whether they are citizens of the United States or not. Due process died on 9/11. Even worse, many believe due process died a long time ago.
On February 19th, Alex Jones told the Infowars.com audience, “I talked to Colonel Marshall [of] the Defense Language School. He said, “All I know is Mohamed Atta trained in my class.””
“The official version about some ghost (Osama bin Laden) in some cave on the other side of the world defeating our entire military establishment on U.S. soil is absolutely preposterous… The true reason the attack was successful is because of an inside military stand-down and a coordinated training operation that prepared the hijackers to fly heavy commercial airliners. We have dozens of FBI documents to prove that this flight training was conducted in California, Florida and Arizona in the 18 months leading up to the attack.” – Philip Marshall (2012)
When Philip Marshall saw the second plane hit the World Trade Center it would set him on a course to discover the truth about 9/11. He came to realize that the Osama bin Laden “killing” on May, 2, 2011 was a farce. I have covered this in my own book, False Flags. Actually it appears Marshall began seriously researching 9/11 around the same time as I did.
Philip Marshall was not killed because he wrote a book on 9/11. Many people have done that. Can we prove he was killed as part of a black-op? Not at this time. Yet we know Marshall had dealings with black-ops and that he knew a lot of key players in the Iran-Contra scandal and the sting of Pablo Escobar. As a pilot Marshall understood that the official story about a plane hitting the Pentagon was not true. To this day, the government has not provided any proof of their own conspiracy theory of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.
One of the questions I have is how Marshall’s children felt about their father’s books. Apparently, on Macaila’s Facebook page there’s a link to her father’s book on 9/11.
Finally, we have the tie-in to more gun control. This time, the high school where Alex and Macaila Marshall attended has created a bereavement fund that includes a scholarship for future students. One of the considerations for the scholarship is the student’s view on “gun control regulations in the community.”
“A bereavement fund for the siblings has been set up at the U.S. Bank branch in Angels Camp. Donations can be made out to Alex and Macaila and mailed to the bank at 580 S. Main St., Angels Camp, CA 95222. The donations will go toward the memorials and a student annual scholarship for Bret Harte High School. The funding will consider students who are involved with the promotion of mental health awareness and gun control regulations in the community, according to organizers.”
Students were told instead of paying admission for that Friday’s school dance, they could donate to the bereavement fund. While I am happy there is a bereavement fund to honor the two teens, I am disgusted that the “organizers” would use such a tragic event to promote more gun regulations.
With all the surrounding questions, what is the big picture here? What is the Big Bamboozle?
“The big picture was emerging as an empire, with a confederacy of domestic enemies attempting a coup, a revolution, against the United States.”
– Philip Marshall (The Big Bamboozle, page 9)
Close friends and family of Chester Bennington claim the Linkin Park frontman did not commit suicide, but was murdered in a cover up that implicates music industry executives and mainstream media.
The Twitter account of Chester Bennington’s wife, Talinda Ann Bentley, published a series of extraordinary messages in the hours immediately following Bennington’s death. In one tweet the account claimed that the singer did not commit suicide.
Media outlets have all claimed the Twitter account must have been hacked, though none have provided any evidence to back up their speculation.
Many fans are disturbed by the idea Bentley’s account was hacked at the same time as her husband’s death, pointing out the unlikely claiming it lends credibility to the theory of a widespread conspiracy and cover up. Others believe she sent the tweets in a state of panic, before a handler stopped her from sending any further messages to the public.
Bennington’s friends are now beginning to come forward and express strong reservations about the suicide verdict in much the same way as Cornell’s friends after his death last month. Fellow musician, Chris Keene, opened up on Facebook, explaining that he has “kept his mouth shut on this for a while due to fear of backlash“, but he has now decided to speak out.
“I’m letting it all out. Chris and Chester were murdered. I’m not buying this suicide shit for 1 minute. Anyone who knows about Chris and Chester knows they were best friends. Chester was even Chris’ sons Godfather. The 2 of them worked together in the Chris and Vickey Cornell foundation who helped prevent the sexual exploitation of vulnerable children.“
Chris Cornell’s wife has also refused to accept the coroner’s verdict that her husband committed suicide, as investigators continue finding suspicious circumstances in the details of his death in Detroit last month.
Chester Bennington was god-father to all three of Cornell’s children, and was deeply involved in Chris and Vicky Cornell’s foundation that was created to help protect the most vulnerable children from abuse. Bennington was continuing the work of his father, who was a detective who worked on child abuse cases, as well as attempting to ensure children do not suffer the sexual abuse that he did as a young person.
Industry insiders and friends of Chester Bennington and Chris Cornell claim the pair were working on exposing key music industry figures who are involved in an elite pedophile ring. They say Cornell and Bennington were both murdered, in eerily similar circumstances, one month apart, in order to cover up the high level crimes.
Mainstream media outlets are launching attacks on anybody who dares to suggest the eerily similar deaths of Chris Cornell and Chester Bennington are suspicious and deserve further investigation.
U.S. fact checking sites were quick to “debunk” claims that Bennington and Cornell’s deaths may be linked, or that there is an active investigation into Bennington’s death, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Media outlets from as far afield as the United Kingdom and New Zealand dashed off hastily written, completely uninformed articles declaring the idea that Bennington’s death was suspicious to be “fake news”. These sick, vile media outlets, operating from the other side of the world, have demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the details of the two cases.
A common thread in all of the mainstream media “debunks” is to claim that Chris Cornell’s autopsy does not mention anything regarding 9 cracked ribs or head wounds. However this is easily proved wrong.
Chris Cornell’s autopsy can be accessed by clicking here. The autopsy report clearly mentions 9 fractured ribs and a head wound on page 2. These injuries are unexplained by the official ruling of suicide by the coroner. Mainstream media and fact checking sites are attempting to mislead the kind of people who do not dig below the surface and do their own research.
Disreputable fact checking sites that receive advertising revenue from the likes of Monsanto – one of the world’s most deceitful, poisonous companies – have joined in the attempt to keep the public misinformed and apathetic.
Be very careful when reading misleading mainstream news. Do not accept on face value the bold claims they make in their headlines and opening paragraphs. Dig below the surface, do your own research, and attempt to confirm their claims. You will often find that you cannot.
Powerful and wealthy music industry elites are scrambling to cover up their crimes, conspiring with mainstream media to keep the public misinformed and apathetic.
Over 90% of the mainstream media in the United States is owned by six corporations. A handful of media oligarchs, in collusion with Hollywood and music industry elite, are conspiring to keep the public in the dark on many issues – including this one.
The Body Snatchers of United 93 and Other Tales of Terror From Cleveland
There it is. The hangar where the ill-fated passengers of United flight 93 were deboarded on September 11, 2001, before they were gassed and their bodies disposed of over the middle of the Atlantic. So closeŠ
“I’d love to get a picture of that hangar,” I say.
“Sure,” says Laurie Rachul. She works in media relations for NASA Glenn Research Center. She set up an interview for me with the head of NASA Glenn security before taking me on a driving tour of the base. But this hangar is what I really came for. This is where everything happened almost five years ago.
Rachul pulls her minivan into a parking lot next to the hangar and hands me a souvenir decal I can attach to my car.
“Nobody’s going to shoot me if I take pictures of that hangar?” I ask.
Rachul laughs. “No,” she says. “It’ll be fine.”
Stepping from the minivan, I pull a digital camera from the leather satchel slung around my left shoulder. I push the power button and walk forward, slowly, toward the hangar doors, which are closed tight. With shaky hands, I raise the Sony Cyber-shot and begin taking pictures.
As I turn back to the van, I see the guard running toward me, hand on his gun. I slip the camera back in the satchel and show him that my hands are now empty.
“Who are you?” he demands, still 50 feet away but closing. He is an imposing fellow. Short, stocky, all muscle.
“I’m a reporter.”
“Who gave you permission to take those pictures?”
I point to the minivan. Rachul is climbing out of the driver’s seat, looking displeased and frightened. “I didn’t know he would get that close,” she says to the guard.
The radio attached to his shoulder squawks to life. An imposing male voice is heard: “Report of a male standing by the main hangar taking pictures. Can we confirm? Come back?”
I look to Rachul, then back to the guard. I wait for the bullet.
“Okay, you can go,” the guard says. “Just be sure to sign out with security.”
That was nearly two weeks ago. If I’m to believe the conspiracies posted on the Internet, the feds have surely tapped my phones by now. They want to know what I know. They’re going through my trash, and tracking my movements through a GPS device some G-man attached to the bottom of my car. After all, they murdered nearly 3,000 American citizens on 9/11. They can easily make one Cleveland reporter disappear.
You mean you haven’t heard?
You didn’t know that the World Trade Center’s collapse was a controlled demolition?
That no evidence of a plane was found among the wreckage at the Pentagon?
It’s all over the Internet. The truth about 9/11: that it was orchestrated by a dangerous cabal with a plan for world domination. A growing number of people now believe that the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, were actually unmanned drones dressed up to look like commercial jetliners. The real planes were destroyed, the civilian passengers gassed, their bodies flown out to sea and deposited beneath the waves in the middle of the ocean.
The goal? To scare the American public into supporting an invasion of the Middle East, the first step toward controlling the bulk of the world’s oil supply.
It gets worse. According to some, the cover-up to disguise what really happened to the passengers of United 93 — the plane whose crash has officially been attributed to patriotic citizens who fought back against their hijackers — began right here in Ohio.
Rumor One: Cleveland Mayor Mike White told reporters that United 93 haD landed safely at Hopkins on 9/11.
Evidence For: At 11:43 a.m. the morning of 9/11, the following Associated Press news bulletin appeared on the Web site for Cincinnati ABC affiliate station WCPO, Channel 9: “A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White. White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93.”
This lone article remains a holy grail of sorts for Jason Bermas and his filmmaking buddies. The 26-year-old Bermas was a graphic designer in upstate New York before he began researching 9/11 for the documentary Loose Change. Sales of the 90-minute DVD have been so brisk that Bermas quit his day job. There’s talk of submitting to Sundance, but in the meantime Bermas and director Dylan Avery, 22, are busy scheduling interviews with CNN and newspapers across the planet for the fifth anniversary of the attacks.
Bermas believes that the article on WCPO’s Web site got it right. United 93 landed safely at Hopkins International Airport, he says, and was wheeled into a hangar at the NASA Glenn Research Center next door.
Evidence Against: Former Mayor White hardly ever talks to the media now, so Free Times contacted his former press secretary Della Homenik.
“It has always been my understanding that United flight 93 diverted from its intended flight plan while it was in Cleveland air space,” Homenik writes in an e-mail. “I never heard a single report, from any source, either on September 11 or in its aftermath, that flight 93 landed in Cleveland.”
A review of WEWS Cleveland Channel 5’s live coverage of White’s comments that day show that he never suggested that the grounded plane parked at the end of a Hopkins runway was United 93.
“Let me walk through the most current situation that we are grappling with,” says White at the brief press conference. “At this moment, we have a Boeing 767 in a secure area of Hopkins International Airport. The initial reports were that this plane was hijacked and that there was a bomb on board. There was, before this, an additional plane in our airspace. I am told through unconfirmed reports that we could hear screaming in the control tower. This plane has been diverted from Cleveland and at last report was in the Toledo airspace.”
Later, we would learn that this 767 was Delta flight 1989. It had originated from the same Boston airport as United 93, but was cleared by inspectors after landing at Hopkins. It had not been hijacked, and there was no bomb. And United 93, by the way, was a 757.
WCPO’s Liz Foreman posted the original news report stating that United 93 had landed in Cleveland, but says the whole thing was just a simple mistake on a very confusing day.
“The story stated that flight 93 landed in Cleveland,” admits Foreman on her station’s blog. “This was not true.” She claims it was an error in the Associated Press wire report that was corrected in later updates. After she discovered the mistake, she removed the link to the story, but not the story itself; Google searches still found it on WCPO’s site until 2003, when someone alerted her to the number of conspiracy blogs that had picked it up. Foreman deleted it, but the damage was done.
“Messages and phone calls started coming in about “Why did the government make me remove the story?'” she writes. “So, in the interest of media transparency, this is my attempt to clear the air.”
United Airlines did not respond to calls for comment.
Rumor Two: United 93 deboarded at NASA Glenn Research Center and its passengers were taken away in an unmarked shuttle.
Evidence For: Newspaper articles published after 9/11 suggest there were two planes, not one, that were forced to land in Cleveland. One was Delta 1989. The other is often referred to as “Flight X” but is assumed by many to be United 93.
The Web site 911review.org cites real articles from the Plain Dealer, Akron Beacon Journal and USA Today to establish these facts:
€ A plane landed in Cleveland at 10:10 a.m.
€ Delta 1989 landed here at 10:45 a.m., and its 69 passengers and nine crew members were loaded onto buses and taken to Federal Aviation Administration headquarters at Hopkins.
€ At 11:15 a.m., 200 passengers from the other plane were taken to NASA Glenn, whose employees had already evacuated, to be interviewed by FBI agents. (While United 93 is known to have carried 37 passengers and seven crew members, conspiracy theorists are quick to point out that if the passengers and crew of all four flights that crashed on 9/11 had been consolidated at some secret location, the number would be right about 200.)
Bloggers claims that eyewitnesses saw civilians being loaded onto military bus ses at NASA Glenn. They were whisked away to some undisclosed location, never to be seen again.
The FAA refused Free Times’ repeated requests for interviews. The media department at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport stopped returning our calls when we asked to speak with the safety director who worked at the airport on 9/11.
During a recent layover in Cleveland, Loose Change producer Jason Bermas questioned an airport employee about the events of 9/11. “She said, “Well, that one Delta flight was grounded here and another was grounded at NASA Glenn,'” Bermas recalls. “We told her we had heard the plane at NASA was United 93. But then she just went into the official version of events and said it was definitely not United 93. But there was another plane at NASA Glenn that day and no one has ever explained that. I’m hoping a news agency will go over and follow up on that.”
Evidence Against: We did. And Bermas is right, there was another plane grounded at NASA Glenn on 9/11. But it wasn’t United 93.
Vernon “Bill” Wessel is the director of safety and mission assurance at NASA Glenn. He was in his office the morning of 9/11 when an employee called him from home. “He says, “Bill, I don’t know if this is a hoax or what, but I just saw a plane crash into the World Trade Center.'” Wessel says he hung up and raced downstairs to a conference room. Center Director Don Campbell joined him. A projector beamed the television’s image onto a large screen just as United Airlines flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center.
An emergency meeting of directors was called, and an order to evacuate NASA was issued. When Wessel learned that Delta 1989 was stuck on the tarmac at Hopkins and that it might contain explosives, he decided it would be unwise to use the front gate, closest to the airport, to evacuate the 3,500 NASA Glenn employees under his watch. E-mails and phone calls were sent out to different departments at the research facility, informing everyone to leave via the back gate. “It took about an hour and a half to evacuate everybody,” Wessel recalls.
So what about the so-called Flight X?
“A KC-135 had to come back to the hangar,” says Wessel, as if realizing for the first time that this aircraft may have caused some undue confusion. A team of scientists from the Johnson Space Center in Houston had flown to Cleveland on this KC-135 to conduct micro-gravity experiments. (Also known as “the vomit comet,” KC-135’s are used to simulate weightlessness. The plane soars to high altitudes, then falls back toward the ground, giving passengers a few seconds of zero-G experience. Scenes for the Tom Hanks movie Apollo 13 were filmed in one.)
The visiting scientists could not return to Houston as scheduled on 9/11 once the FAA ordered all planes to land. “After the facility closed, we had to take those scientists to a hotel.” The scientists, dressed as civilians, were boarded onto shuttle buses.
Rumor Three: Covert ops replaced the real United 93 and the other hijacked airplanes with remote-controlled drones.
Evidence For: A similar operation was proposed before.
In 1962, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer suggested to President John F. Kennedy a plan that could drum up public support for an invasion of Cuba. Operation Northwoods, as the plan was dubbed, called for staging a terrorist hijacking of an American airliner and blaming the attack on Cuba.
The proposal was kept secret until 1997, when it was released by members of the Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. The 44-year-old memo, written by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, is a chilling read: “The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.
“Š It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civilian airliner Š The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday.”
It goes on to detail the plan. “An aircraft at Eglin [Air Force Base] would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.”
The drone aircraft and the actual aircraft would rendezvous in the air. The civilian plane would then land at a secure facility, while the drone would continue to follow the real plane’s flight plan.
“When over Cuba, the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY’ message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the United States what has happened to the aircraft instead of the United States trying to “sell’ the incident.”
Shortly after Kennedy read the proposal, he sacked Lemnitzer.
The year the memo was released, 1997, is also the year the Project for a New American Century was established. The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization’s stated goal is to promote American global leadership. Its membership roster reads like the invitation list for President Bush’s birthday bash: Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush.
In 2000, the Project for a New American Century issued a report titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses. Here’s a snippet: “Further, the process of transformation [to worldwide American dominance], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.”
The morning of 9/11, the Department of Defense was conducting a training exercise to test America’s air defenses in response to a simulated Russian attack. A co-sponsor of this annual exercise was the Air Force Space Command. When the hijackings began to occur, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, FAA controllers were confused. They wondered if it was part of the ongoing military drill.
Evidence Against: The best evidence against this mind-blowing theory is the phone calls made by passengers and crew of the hijacked flights. In real time, they relayed what was happening on the planes to relatives and friends on the ground.
Rumor Four: Government agents faked the phone calls coming from United 93.
Evidence For: On February 1, 1999, the Washington Post Web site published an incredible story about a new trick up the military’s sleeve. Scientist George Papcun, of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, claimed that he could clone speech patterns from a 10-minute digital recording of anyone’s voice. To demonstrate, Papcun’s team cloned then-Secretary of State Colin Powell’s voice using clips from public speeches.
Powell’s voice was heard, clearly saying: “I am being treated well by my captors.”
Another test mimicked Gen. Carl Steiner, former commander of U.S. Special Operations Command. This is what Papcun had Steiner say: “Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government.”
The filmmakers behind Loose Change believe this software was used on 9/11 to mimic the voices of those passengers who contacted their families from the hijacked planes. Studies, he says, show that at that time, most cell phones would not have worked onboard airplanes.
Bermas points out that the only civilians who have been allowed to listen to the voices captured by the data recorder of United 93 are the families of the victims. And that happened only once. No one was allowed to take notes, and they first had to sign an agreement not to discuss what they heard.
Evidence Against: We know that cell phones worked aboard Delta 1989 that day, at least according to a woman who was on it. Free Times tracked her down through a blogger (whose blog is not related to 9/11), and to our knowledge she is the only passenger from that flight who has ever been interviewed. Mary — she spoke on condition that we not use her last name — is a lawyer living on the Boston area.
“I was flying to California with my husband and eight co-workers,” Mary recalls. “We were told that we would have to make an emergency landing but that it was not for technical reasons. [Over Cleveland] we were obviously in some kind of holding pattern and it was taking forever. Then at some point, I don’t remember exactly when, the pilot came on and said that we could make a phone call. People began making calls to family and friends and then learning that these horrendous things were happening. There were ripples of conversation around the plane. And then, I remember this person saying that a plane had flown into the World Trade Center. Someone else said the Trade Center had just collapsed. I got angry and thought people were just exaggerating. I mean, let’s not be alarmists.”
That’s when her husband called the stewardess over and asked, “How do we know there’s nobody up there in the cockpit with the pilot right now? Are we sure everything’s okay?”
The pilot came back on the radio, assured everyone the plane had not been hijacked, and shortly thereafter, made the descent into Cleveland.
“I know someone who actually believes a plane did not crash into the Pentagon,” she says. “My husband and I, we knew a doctor who was on that flight. He was supposed to meet us later in California. He died.”
Rumor Five: There were no passengers aboard United 93 when it crashed.
Evidence For: Before United 93 crashed smack-dab into his jurisdiction, Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller was probably most known for being a local Civil War buff. But today, he’s known nationally as the official who implied that there were no bodies on the plane that crashed into a Shanksville, Pennsylvania field.
“This is the most eerie thing,” he told a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporter for an article on the first anniversary of the attacks. “I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop.”
Bermas, of Loose Change, says, “If you look at pictures of the crash site in Shanksville, there’s no evidence of a crash. No parts from an airplane. No body parts. Just a hole in the ground with some tiny bits of metal. Š Then the government shows us a bandana that one of the hijackers wore, which they said was recovered from the crash site. It’s folded perfectly. No blood on it. It looks like the government is manufacturing evidence.”
Evidence Against: Miller is still the coroner. Last week, he was found at his funeral home, pulling dandelions from his lawn.
A tall, lanky fellow, Miller is at first hesitant to speak on the subject. But then the anger spills over.
“It’s all bullshit,” says Miller. “I’m not saying I was misquoted, but the quote was taken out of context. There were pieces of people. Trust me. I cleaned it up. The plane hit the ground doing 575 miles per hour. The rest of the remains were vaporized on impact. But we did ID everyone onboard.”
He has received calls from strangers demanding to know why he’s covering for the government. “These people are extremely adversarial,” he says. “It’s just getting annoying. It speaks for the need for better regulation of the Internet. But I guess that’s the sort of freedom we’re fighting for.” (That last sentence is soaked in sarcasm.)
But did the plane crash or was it shot down?
“I don’t know anything about that,” he says, turning back to the lawn. “You need to take that up with the government.”
Rumor Six: The military shot down United 93.
Evidence For: In August 2002, FAA officials invited Cleveland-area reporters on an abbreviated tour of the Oberlin control tower that had handled traffic for Hopkins on 9/11. In a simulator room, a radar screen displaying that day’s air traffic was replayed for the journalists to give them an idea of the chaos that the controllers had to deal with that day.
As the blips representing United 93 neared Shanksville, a reporter from a Lorain County paper (Dan Harkins, who now works at the Free Times) noticed a few new “blips” appearing onscreen a few states away after commercial aircraft had been ordered from the sky, converging quickly on the commercial airliner’s position. “What are those?” a broadcast reporter asked. An FAA official said they could have been military aircraft taking off but noted how Flight 93’s blip had extinguished long before the other blips got even close.
Then there is the possible admission of a shoot-down by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. During a visit to Iraq on Christmas Eve in 2004, Rumsfeld addressed the meaning of the word “terror”, saying, “I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples’ heads on television to intimidate, to frighten — indeed the word “terrorized’ is just that.”
Rumsfeld later claimed he misspoke.
evidence Against: Lee Purbaugh was breaking apart steel beams at Rollock Scrap in Shanksville when the plane flew over him, barely clearing the tops of nearby trees. He is the only known witness to United 93’s final moments.
“I heard the jet engines,” he recalls, sitting on a plastic chair at the top of a wrought-iron staircase that leads to his Somerset apartment. As he speaks, his daughter, Hannah, flits about his feet. She was born September 11, 2002.
“It looks like it’s coming in for a landing. All of a sudden, it started rocking back and forth.” He moves his hand in the air, in the shape of a plane, and twists it first to the right, then to the left. “Then it turned upside down and went nose down at a slight angle. When it hit it just broke up into tiny pieces. Flames shot up and it disappeared into the ground. It looked like footage I saw once on World’s Greatest Disasters. I felt the ground shaking. I saw no [fighter] jets.”
Purbaugh and his boss were the first people on the scene. “We were looking for survivors. But when we saw the hole, we knew there wouldn’t be any. You could smell the fuel cooking. The biggest piece of debris we found was about 5 feet in diameter. And I found somebody’s boot.”
Bill Keaton was responsible for the airspace in which United 93 disappeared from radar on 9/11, or at least for those airplanes flying between 24,000 and 33,000 feet. Keaton worked for Cleveland Center, the Oberlin-based control tower that monitors a huge swatch of airspace over middle America for the FAA. Today, he is a spokesman for his union, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, but still logs many hours in front of those radar screens.
“I was told not to let anyone within 20 miles of that plane,” says Keaton. “It was coming right through the middle of my sector. I just watched it march through the scope on a line heading toward Washington.”
Someone had turned off United 93’s transponder, so it was impossible to tell at what altitude the plane was flying. Keaton kept other aircraft as far from its radar signal as possible.
“Once  disappeared from my scope, I asked another pilot if he could go down and take a look. He said he saw black smoke coming from the area where United 93 lost signal. I heard a confirmation of the crash [from another pilot] as well.”
Keaton firmly believes that United 93 was not shot down. But when asked if there were fighter jets in the vicinity of the plane when it crashed, he answers carefully. “I know what you’re getting at. But that goes beyond the scope of what I can comment on. I’m sorry to be evasive. There were a few little things that happened that day that I can’t comment on.”
Air traffic controllers can lose their security clearances if they talk about the movements of military aircraft or military exercises.
Lee H. Hamilton is a legendary Democrat. Elected to the House of Representatives in 1965, he remained in Congress until 1999 and was one of Bill Clinton’s top picks for vice president. Later he was co-chair of the Commission to Investigate Certain Security Issues at Los Alamos, and currently is working with the Iraq Study Group, an organization headed by former Secretary of State James Baker.
He was also co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission.
“It was a huge amount of data to sort through,” says Hamilton in a phone interview. “We put a tremendous weight on the facts. But doing something this complex in the amount of time we were given was difficult. Oh, there were loose ends. This is only the first draft of history. It’s held up well. But I don’t believe we have written the final draft. There’s bound to be some information that comes out which we didn’t have then.”
Hamilton remains troubled by the fact that the government lied to the commission repeatedly during the investigation.
“We were misled by the FAA and NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command],” he says. Neither wanted the American people to know how unprepared they’d been. “When we went to NORAD command center in New York, we found tapes that had not been furnished to the commission. By listening to those tapes, we discovered that their official story didn’t add up. So we issued subpoenas and started from scratch.”
Regarding United 93, Hamilton says that there is a gap in the accounts of the president’s and vice president’s actions that day; several minutes at the time that shooting down hijacked planes was discussed have not been accounted for.
“When you have that, you obviously leave an opening for the conspiracy questions,” Hamilton notes. “But sometimes you cannot answer every question that is raised. We made a lot of judgments. I don’t know if we made all the judgments correctly. The American people demanded from us a kind of airtight evidence. What we ask is that the standard be applied both ways.”
Later, without provocation, Hamilton brings up Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper located next to the World Trade Center that caught fire when the towers fell. It housed offices of government agencies, including the Defense Department, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the IRS and the CIA. Its oddly neat collapse — straight down, as if dropping into a hole that suddenly opened in the ground — has led some to argue that it was a controlled demolition intended to bury the secrets of the government’s involvement in the terrorist attacks.
“We consulted with expert architects,” says Hamilton. “You simply cannot answer every question about why Building 7 collapsed.”
Marvin Bush, George W.’s younger brother, worked for the company in charge of security for Building 7 on 9/11.
Five years later, the temporary memorial to the passengers of United 93 is the busiest place in Shanksville. Roxanne Sullivan, whose name tag refers to her as a “Flight 93 Ambassador” passes out pamphlets to visitors. The booklets show off the winning design for the permanent memorial, which should be finished by 2011.
There is a wall nearby where people can leave mementos. A Cub Scout T-shirt hangs from one two-by-four, signed by each young pack member. Many visitors leave coins. Others leave rosaries. A row of Happy Meal toys lines one shelf.
Messages are scrawled on every available surface. May the angels in Heaven always watch over you, wrote Sally Whiteman of Hollywood, Maryland. Let’s Roll is written everywhere.
This is a somber place, an open tomb.
It’s no place for theories.
For more information visit: